Chapter 6: True Nature of the UN Revealed; Outlook for the Future

President of the UN Human Rights Council, Ambassador Choe Gyon-linof the Republic of Korea (right)

A. What we learned by visiting the Human Rights Council
By Fujiki Shunichi
Totally in the background
I am the only member of the Alliance for Truth about the Comfort Women (hereafter theAlliance) that fully engages in UN activities including participating in investigativedelegation missions. I constantly help those who speak at the UN, drafting speeches,translating speeches, negotiating with UN staff and Committee members, interpreting,setting up interviews with media, taking minutes, teaching pronunciation and evenacting as a bodyguard at times. In other words, I work totally behind the scenes and in
the background.
Preparing for a two-minute speech to be delivered at the UN committees and doing
various background chores is far more nerve-racking than actually delivering the speech
itself. One needs to be well-versed in potential overseas issues when it comes to making
flight reservations and dealing with various matters at airports and hotels.
Fortunately, I have been a globe-trotter for nearly 30 years, having been engaged in thecommerce and consulting business ever since I was a young man. So, naturally, I regard
myself as quite fit to carry out this kind of background work.
What we consider normal often turns out to be “abnormal” overseas. In many cases,
what Japanese call “common sense” is different from that of foreign countries. Also, it1

is quite likely that Japanese people overseas may get involved in various problems. So,
an important role of mine is to inform our members of what is going on in the world,
prepare them to avoid problems and solve problems once they occur.
The Alliance mainly deals with the Comfort Women issue. Since it is a matter dealing
with sex, we feel that women are better able to deal with this than men. So, from thestart, our representatives at the UN have been Ms. Yamamoto Yumiko, President ofJapanese Women for Justice and Peace and Ms. Sugita Mio, former member of theJapanese Diet.

Mr. Fujiki Shunichi
states his view at theUN Human Rights
Council (upper left).

Traditionally, the UN has been a popular arena for leftwing activists who freely speak
their mind. However, once our UN missions began and we started visiting the UN quite
frequently, things seem to have changed for the better. In fact, the anti-Japanese
propaganda campaign staged at the UN by leftists and the Japan Federation of Bar
Associations is now less licentious.
The Comfort Women issue has been taken up by five human-rights committees and the
Human Rights Council, each of which has issued recommendations and suggestions tothe Japanese government. What this UN procedure means is that “if the Japanese
government does not offer a rebuttal, then the matter becomes established as fact, even
if it is in fact a lie.” This is simply terroristic thinking, which is cunningly used by“humanitarian” lawyers and organizations.
No rebuttal means that the allegation is right. So, we have to refute each and every

2anti-Japanese allegation. At all five human rights committees and council, we need torefute them every time they meet to discuss some matter. Anti-Japanese leftwing
activists have been working on the Comfort Women issue at the UN for the past
twenty-two years.
It is not at all easy and simple to topple this decades-old anti-Japanese campaign. The
Alliance started sending missions to the UN (at first investigative delegations) in 2014
and we were quickly labeled as “revisionists historians” by leftists and the UN. All we
can do in response is to assert that, first of all, it is not us but leftwing activists thatrevised history. In order to fight back, we prepare evidential material and present it to
the committees and disseminate the truth about the so-called Comfort Women. In
dealing with the Comfort Women issue, we are in a really critical situation, down to
one’s last breath. Thus out job is to resuscitate history by using the truth.
The leftists never fail to bring up the Comfort Women issue at each committee,
criticizing the Japanese government’s response and demanding that the Japanese
government apologize, compensate and portray the issue in history textbooks. It seems
almost impossible to break their demands. However, if we do nothing against them, theinternational community will be led to believe that the anti-Japanese allegations aretrue.
Charging the UN Human Rights Council on my own
Under the circumstances, I attended a UN Human Rights Council held on March 11,
2016, alone, and spoke up against Professor Maeda Akira of Tokyo Zokei University,
who is a colleague of Mr. Totsuka Etsuro.
When different views are presented at the Council, the case is categorized as “in dispute”
and the Council is not to make a conclusion. In short, the Council works similarly to atrial. Before we acted at the UN, in cases as the Comfort Women issue, no objection
were raised against allegations made by leftwing activists simply because opposing
views like ours were not made. Consequently, like a trial in absentia, leftwing activists
made all of their assertions and based on their claims, recommendations afterrecommendations were issued to the Japanese government.
As I previously explained, I work mostly in the background, helping our representatives
make speeches at the UN. However, thinking it too burdensome to leave all the3

responsibility involved in dealing with the Committees and Council solely to ourrepresentatives, this time I decided to go to the front myself.
The following in its entirely is a speech I made at the Council on that occasion:
Title: Issue of Military Comfort WomenThank you very much Mr. Chairman.
The Japanese delegation addressed the 63rd UN Committee on the Elimination ofDiscrimination against Women held on the 16th of February this year.
The Japanese government addressed mainly indicated three points to the committee.
・ They could not find any evidence that the Japanese authorities forced Korean
women into sexual slavery after a full scale investigation.
・ The figure of 200,000 women, which has been widely reported, has no concrete
evidence.
・ The term “sex slave” is contrary to the facts, because they were well paid
prostitutes according to the US Prisoners of War interrogation report No. 49
issued in 1944 and many others.
On the 28th of December last year, Japan and South Korea came to a conclusion toclose this contentious issue between the two nations. Both nations agreed not to bringup the comfort women issue any more.
However, there is a major instigator in Korea that keeps bringing this issue up.
This organization is called “Jeong Dae Hyeob,” meaning “Alliance for thecountermeasure of women volunteer workers corps issue” in Korean language, which
has nothing to do with the comfort women issue even from its name.
Furthermore, this organization intentionally misleads the public outside Korea by
incorrectly translating its name as “The Korean Council for the Women Drafted for
Military Sexual Slavery by Japan” in English.
The reason is to fabricate the purpose of the organization and to make those women
look as pitiful as possible to raise money.

4They have been dragging self-proclaimed former comfort women to several placesincluding Europe, the USA, and Japan to testify what the organization has trained
them to say.
Their testimonies have changed several times and the story line is getting morepathetic each time.
Some of them said, “I was dragged into a jeep by Japanese soldiers, we were
especially busy during Christmas time, and I could not communicate with the driver
because I could not speak English, etc.”
Even in these short statements, there are three errors.
1) Japan did not have jeeps at that time.
2) Japan was/is not a Christian nation so there is no holiday for soldiers during
Christmas time, and3) Japanese soldiers did not speak English.
Recently two former comfort women testified in Japan. One of them said, “Japanmade Korea a sea of flames.” Although they were considered Japanese citizens at thattime and there was no need for Japan to raze their own soil, they testified to what they
have not experienced because of the organization.
In 1996, UN Special Rapporteur Ms. Radhika Coomaraswamy made a report on thisissue, which was based on these fabricated stories and testimonies.
Ms. Coomaraswamy was deceived by those who wanted to turn this issue into money
for themselves and to criticize Japan.
Since the grounds for the argument in the Coomaraswamy report has been disproved,
we request the UN Human Rights Council to conduct a further investigation with theJapanese government and to repeal the Coomaraswamy report or submit a new reportbased on the facts, not fabrication.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Here, let us not make a villain out of an incompetent UN. Also, instead of blaming Ms.

5Radhika Coomaraswamy for writing the Coomaraswamy report, let us condemn thoseso-called former comfort women who got involved in the investigative stage, and theJapan Federation of Bar Associations and others for making incorrect reports andtestimonials, as we have determined through our investigation. At the same time, theconspiratorial relationship between the UN and anti-Japanese leftists must be cut.
Distinct differences between despotic states and liberal democratic states
At the Human Rights Council, a very interesting incident occurred. Let me explain.
An NGO, called “United Nations Watch,” made a presentation, several speakers prior tome. According to this NGO, before the Human Rights Council began, some twenty
NGOs from various countries met to hear cases of human rights violations committed
by the government of each country.
Each NGO is allowed two minutes to speak to the Human Rights Council. For the firstminute and a half, the NGO reported the result of the investigative hearing it conducted,
mentioning the real names of victims of human rights violation. Then, suddenly, thespeaker said, “Horrible human rights violations are actually taking place in the countries
that you, Human Rights Council directors, represent.” He hinted that he was doubtful
whether the Human Rights Council directors were worthy of the position.
Then a Cuban representative, one of the Council directors, hearing of human rights
violations in his own country, began banging at the table and cried, “Point of order!”interrupting the speaker.
The term “point of order” means that a director of the Council can interrupt a speaker
when the director decides that the speaker is not following conference procedures. The
Cuban director indignantly stated, “No NGO is qualified to speak about mattersconcerning the appointment of directors of the Human Rights Council.”Upon this, the President of the Council, who is a South Korean, asked each of theCouncil directors to comment on the matter.
Representatives from China, Venezuela, Russia and others supported the point of order
voiced by the Cuban. On the other hand, representatives from liberal democracies suchas the United States and Canada said, “The NGO is following procedures. Some of you

6may not agree with him, but the NGO should be allowed to continue.”
Against this, the Cuban director repeated his angry remark to the Korean president,“This NGO is making fools of all of us here in this hall, including you, President Choe.”
However, the Korean president flatly dismissed this, saying that, “That is your personalopinion.” The NGO was allowed to continue. With about five seconds left to speak, theNGO concluded his speech, stating with anger, “You can use censorship within yourhomeland, but you can’t censor the United Nations.” The entire conference hall wasfilled with applause. And the Cuban director left the hall while the Council was still insession.
This brave voice from the NGO was received with an echo of agreement by other NGOs
present. The incident shows how incompetent the UN is and at the same time shows theextreme frustration that many NGOs bear against the UN. Furthermore, it became quite
clear which countries are responsible for domestic violations of human rights. It waslong ago that the need to reform the UN became a familiar topic. In reality, however, it
is an undeniable fact that the UN is used to promoting national interests by member
countries.
In fact, we fear that some kind of pressure could be put on this particular NGO by China,and others, which are notorious violators of freedom of speech. Worse still, the NGO
may be deprived of its Special Consultative Status. On the other hand, with so muchrisk anticipated, this shows how desperate the NGO is in trying to improve the currently
deplorable situation in terms of violations of human rights.
Is Japan a masochistic nation?
Now that I am a frequent visitor to the UN, I have become acquainted and on speaking
terms with some of the media people working in the UN. One of them said to me,“Japan sends large delegations here to the UN and appears to make sincere efforts. No
other country in the world is equal to Japan in this respect. Honestly, I don’t understand
why Japan is so earnest in dealing with UN committees which cannot make legallybinding legislation. There really is no problem at all if you just ignore the committees,
just as China does. Japan is so earnest that some seem to use it against Japan.”I emphatically agree with this comment. In Japan, even elementary school textbooks say7

that the United Nations is an organization devoted to world peace. The UN continues tobe worshiped as such. The ugly fact is that the UN is a hall of propaganda in which
various interests clash and compete. It remains to this day an organization of thevictorious nations and still regards Japan as a hostile nation.
While the United States refuses to pay its due contribution (22% of the global total),
Japan is currently the largest contributor to the UN (10.833%, about ¥31 billion). And
yet, no one understands Japan. The UN committee members from developing countries
whose names are hardly known or from countries with rampant human rights violations
are constantly issuing recommendation for improvement to the Japanese government. Itis quite natural that outsiders feel that this is a pathetic situation. It almost looks as if
Japan is masochist, taking pleasure in being mistreated.
At the Human Rights Council this time around, Professor Maeda Akira of Zokei
University, who is said to be a follower of Mr. Totsuka Etsuro, the very lawyer thatcoined at the UN the term “sex slaves” for comfort women, expressed his view,
diametrically opposite to my own, sticking to the previously established formula that thecomfort women were “sex slaves” and coerced by Japan, and further demanded that theJapanese government further apologize, compensate and mention the “facts” in history
textbooks.
Against such false assertion, if no one presents an opposing view at the Council andrefute these lies, just like in a trial in absentia, it is patently obvious that Japan will belabeled as a villainous nation. Once such dishonor is inflicted on an international scope,
Japan will never be able to recover her honor. From now on, I will do everything in mypower to speak up for Japan, as I did this time, whenever the need arises.

8